(Author’s note: This column was written and submitted prior to President Barack Obama announcing his support for marriage equality on Wednesday. I’m hopeful the discussion of why this is a good idea for Obama and his campaign, and the reasons why will still be timely, and appropriate for consideration.)
Advisers to and spinmeisters for President Barack Obama and his reelection campaign went into action earlier this week when Vice President Joe Biden seemed to take a firm stand in favor of gay marriage while being interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Whether Biden meant to make such a strong statement on the issue or this was another case of the veep engaging his mouth before his brain, it so far has been a missed opportunity for Obama to become the first president to make an unequivocal statement in favor of marriage equality.
“I am vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction — beyond that.”
For some reason, instead of either embracing Biden’s comments or simply letting them stand, members of Obama’s campaign team began to “walk back” Biden’s words — which is a politician’s way of saying the team tried to convince voters they didn’t hear what they actually heard. According to the Associated Press, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters it makes sense for Obama to oppose a ban on gay marriage, while not overtly supporting a right to marriage equality. David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Obama’s reelection effort, said “gay or heterosexual couples are entitled to the very same rights and very same liberties (as heterosexual couples),” and said gay marriages should be supported where they are already legal, saying nothing about the discrimination in the 43 (soon to be 41) states where they are not.
The problem with this tack is to those opposed to equal marriage rights, it’s a distinction without a difference, while the semantic games serve to infuriate Obama’s supporters who also back marriage rights (49 percent of all Americans with 40 percent against, and 67 percent of Democrats, according to a March poll from the Wall Street Journal and NBC).
Of course, part of Obama’s reluctance has to come from the fact numbers from opinion polls and ballot boxes don’t have a 1:1 correlation. Older Americans are more likely to vote and less likely to support marriage equality. Seven of nine likely swing states in the 2012 presidential election have statutory or constitutional prohibitions on gay marriage, suggesting voters in those states would be less likely to back a candidate who supports it. And, whenever marriage equality — or, as seen recently in Anchorage — basic civil rights measures for gays are on a ballot, opponents tend to pepper their rhetoric against such fairness with plenty of fire and brimstone. Whether it’s right or wrong, “God wants you to vote this way” is a better campaign slogan than “Let’s be reasonable.”
Whatever value this campaign strategy might have had in past elections, its worth will be diminished in November. The tide is turning, and Obama seems well aware of it. His campaign even produced a guide to his bona fides on civil rights for gays, most notably his efforts to end the military’s discrimination policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” and his administration’s refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Any votes that would be lost to unequivocal support of marriage equality have likely already been lost because of Obama’s support of these high-profile measures. Though it’s also true any supporter of gay marriage who’s picking a president based on that issue would already be choosing Obama — given Mitt Romney’s support of marriage discrimination — this means the electoral value of fence-sitting is small, given the wash of votes for and votes against that would result. Being on the right side of history, though, could pay dividends for a generation of future voters — just as being on the right side of slavery helped Republicans and being on the right side of civil rights helped northern Democrats. Not to mention the value in doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing, and the boost marriage rights proponents would receive in upcoming political battles on the issue.
There’s been speculation that Biden’s comments weren’t a mere gaffe — particularly after Secretary of Education Arne Duncan came out in favor of marriage equality as well — but a gauge of public reaction to a high-profile administration member backing this issue. A politically prudent step, to be sure, but an unnecessary one. The baby steps on this issue have already been taken, along with a few leaps. The next jump — one that would commit America to a path of full marriage equality — is a sitting president making a stand in favor of gays receiving equal protection under the law in all areas, including marriage. The opportunity to seize that moment is there for Obama, and he should do so.
• Ward is deputy managing editor of the Juneau Empire. The views he expresses are his alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Empire’s editorial board.
Comments (104)
Add commentProud
That was how I felt when our President came out and took a stand. Not a wishy washy awe shucks statement. But a stand! I truly hope this is just the beginning.
Love, respect and mutual admiration, those are the cornerstones of marriage. Not gender or race.
The tide is indeed turning!...
...and Obama just polished his new surf board, and is riding the wave of freedom, acceptance and equal rights for gays.
And all the surfers love it!
Public acceptance of gays has never been higher! Obama saw this trend and he hopped on board. And this puts Romney in a precarious situation for November.
Gays may lose a battle here and there, but we are DEFINITELY winning the war!
The anti-gay marriage rhetoric is being fueled by the conservative right-wing religious sheeple such as the Anchorage Baptist Temple and similar lemming organizations. The younger generation sees the discrimination for what it is, and they are not a part of it. The younger generation is clearly the tide Obama has found. It's sad it took him so long to find it, but better late than never.
When DADT was repealed, there was a lot of rhetoric about how it would ruin our military, blah blah. Guess what? That repeal came and went without even a whimper! That day was a HUGE red letter day in the struggle for equal rights for gays.
Now as soon as Adam and Steve can get married in Alaska, that will be a finer day.
It's only a matter of time before that hateful, discriminatory amendment/wart on our state's constitution will be repealed.
And it will be raining men in Juneau on that day!
And I will be there, dancing in the streets, in my prettiest pink chaps and feather boa (figuratively speaking of course).
Backward and Forward
So far Obama has managed to move forward, then backward, then stay backward, the move forward again. Don't worry folks, if the winds change he'll certainly change his mind again. In Chicago he was for gay marriage, then was against it for his Senate and Presidential bids, and now is once again all for it. If this is evolution he'd be back at hom_o habilis (no pun intended). Nothing more than more electioneering posturing.
Disgusted
Obama systematically destroying America, caving in to the overly vocal minority. I think I'm going to be sick.
Overly vocal minority??
I didn't think the Heartland Institute and the Tea Partiers supported equal rights for gay people...
LifeLongAlaskan
Heh. Gay marriage is destroying America, eh? Are you sure it doesn't relate to your brazen ignorance and blindingly self-centered worldview?
well said, lvmykyk
Very well said. Agree with you wholeheartedly.
I love cats
there, I said it. I stand behind it, even though I've ALWAYS been a dog person, except for that time I was trying to win over a girl that had a thing for ferrets -- but regardless, I love cats now.
Doesnt mean I'm going out to get a cat. Doesnt mean I'm going to find homes for homeless cats. Doesnt mean anything really.
Rhetorical prose from the President
can certainly set the tone, but a Constitutional Amendment is still required. Keep the feather boa in the closet.
aRTCLE
As was said during the Civil Rights movement FREEDOM FREEDOM has rung
Who cares?
If you aren't gay, don't worry about it.
"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg..." said Thomas Jefferson.
A true conservative does not want the government intruding on private life.
If your neighbor wants to smoke, watch TV, play the violin, hunt for deer, read Palin's "Going Rogue," or love another man -- why is that the business of the government?
Marriage is NOT to be defined by a government that is supposed to be "equal" -- I am not gay, but I think that just taking the gender bias out of it will make it easier for everyone.
Keep government out of the marriage business. The less hold the government has on personal lives, the more freedoms we have as Americans.
Agree, middleoftheroad!
Agree, middleoftheroad!
Shuck & Jive:
The gay community is being duped. Obama would have never said a thing if it wasn’t for Biden and his big mouth. This is nothing but political grandstanding, whatever suits his agenda. Shuck and jive nothing more, he has to hide behind something; he certainly can’t stand behind his accomplishments.
Oh, Milspec. We already knew
Oh, Milspec. We already knew Obama was for gay marriage--he "walked it back" before because it was politically unpalatable. Now that a majority of the country is okay with it, though, he can enact his agenda:
Step 1: Legalize gay marriage
Step 2: DESTROY AMERICA
Step 3: Barbecue
Good excuse:
I really don’t care PP. However, which is it with this clown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
@ PP
Barbeque! Hahahahaha!! Thanks for that!
Mexico
Mexico has its drug problems, poverty and crime, but it also has a fine Constitution - even though it not always followed.
Most Mexican citizens are Catholic, or at least follow many of the beliefs and practices of that religion, However the only recognized marriage is a civil union That is, a legal union conducted by a legal representative. If a couple wish to have a religious ceremony they may do so, but a religious ceremony alone is not recognized.
Maybe we can learn from our neighbors to the south how to separate Church and State and allow individuals to enter into civil unions that have all the benefits and responsibilities of a religious "marriage."
Well said middleoftheroad
And Jo...a wart on our state's constitution. Very nicely put. My feeling exactly. May the wart of intolerance be removed forever.
I am proud too....
Need another lawsuit
To my liberal pals, don't worry.. your "hypocritical" gay republican friends will file another lawsuit to get this thing passed thru, just as what happened with DADT.
I'm all for socialism - I think its a great idea that everyone will be taken care of.. but enacting it and making it work, entirely different story. Talk is just talk unless there is action.
Until then, I am still voting with my wallet this year - whoever presents a *real* plan to fix our budget and reduce our deficit NOW, not later, will get my gay vote.
don't care about the motivation
just so pleased and very proud to have a sitting president in a campaign for his re-election stand up for equality. well done.
just signed a petition asking the Democratic Party to make marriage equality part of their 2012 platform. You can too: http://www.change.org/petitions/democratic-national-committee-include-ma...
p.s. middleoftheroad said it best!
Marriage vs. civil unions
"Separate but equal" has never been equal. This is why we gays insist on full marriage rights, not just civil unions or different nomenclature.
I agree with middleoftheroad partially. Government has no business sanctioning marriage.
But, since they do, then they have a responsibility to open it up fairly to all legal aged persons. Hell, I'm even cool with polygamy.
@Mama T: warts are usually temporary and easily removed. The anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is exactly that. It will be repealed one fine day.
a bumper sticker I love
"I support gay marriage. Gays should have every right to be just as miserable as other married people."
CHANT WITH ME, EVERYONE!
"Hey! Hey! (clap clap)
We're gay! (clap clap)
And God made us this way! (clap clap)
Hey! Hey! (clap clap)
We're queer! (clap clap)
And we'll be here every year! (clap clap)!"
Now where'd I put my fabulous mimosa?
wmolson - I think....
It's essentially the same here, right? You can have all the church ceremonies you want, but you still have to get the license, a piece of paper from the court house, do the blood test, whatever, to make it LEGAL.
I'm not married, so I'm not sure, but.....
@ Ken Dunker
(crash)
(bang)
(smash)
That sound you just heard was me kicking open my closet door, wearing my pink feather boa and singing "It's Raining Men" Hallelujah!
A constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling is closer than you think. Careful what you wish for.
By the way, did anyone else see "The Simpsons" the other night where they turned Moe's bar into a gay bar called "Mo's?" Hilarious episode. In the final scene, Moe kisses Smithers on the lips just to see what it would be like. Since I can't post links here, go to YouTube and search "Flaming Moe's - everybody vogue."
cracking me up
Joe - you are cracking me up today. I'm picturing 'giddy as a schoolgirl'. :)
You dance as much as you like!
He said I'm OK!
Considering the source and his propensity for the expedient, I wouldn't be doing cartwheels or blow kisses at the moisties yet. Obama's declaration that Gitmo's going away was MUCH bolder. This was tossing a bone at a fringe element with an identity crisis. Good dog, now stop that yapping.
@Grendel
Jo doesn't seem to have an identity crisis, he knows exactly who he is. Maybe you're just projecting ...
As far as this particular issue goes, President Obama had already made concrete advances on equality for homosexuals with his refusal to defend DOMA and his repeal of DADT prior to giving his personal view on marriage equality. His action on Gitmo hasn't really matched his stated goal as of yet. Here's hoping.
I am disturbed with how the
I am disturbed with how the president framed the issue of same-gender marriage. Obama declared that he has "always been adamant that the homosexual and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally."
I believe all of us are for fair and equal treatment for every American -- including those who self-identify as homosexual, But fairness and equality does not include legally elevating homosexual relationships to the same level of the God-ordained institution of marriage.
And the notion that homosexual partners are being denied the freedom to live as they wish is absurd.
No one is stopping them from doing that, but taking these relationships into the public square and demanding that we change public policy, create special laws, and change the very definition of marriage is intolerable.
Simply eliminating an entire gender from the picture and still calling it 'marriage' is not a mere re-definition of the institution but rather the destruction of a core building block of society.
God has not made anyone homosexual. It is a lifestyle choice. People are not born homosexual. If so, how can you explain the thousands of people who formerly practiced a totally homosexual lifestyle but now live totally heterosexual lives?
Also, homosexuality is not a civil right, as defined under federal civil rights laws.
I also don't believe for a minuite that the majority of the country is for homosexual marriage. I believe the majority of the USA is more in line with the over 61% of North Carolinians who voted for a man-woman only marriage amendment just two days ago.
What I don't understand
What I don't understand is why some people (and yes, I'm looking at you charleylawson) who claim to love God and wish to live under God's guiding hand don't actually TRUST God.
Let same sex couples marry. The government shouldn't be involved and shouldn't decide why some people's love is more just and other's isn't. And if it is wrong, and an abomination, then God will sort it all out on judgement day.
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls." - Romans 14: 1-4
@charleylarson
Bravo, Couldn't have said it better myself. Proponents of the whole gay rights thing are always too ready to fling their stale rhetoric and call everyone Homophobic that doesn't agree with them and bend to their demands. Even the word Homophobia is inaccurate, a Phobia is an irrational fear of something but nobody I know is the least bit scared of Gay people, just disgusted by the thought of their un-natural unions and sick of them trying to shove it down our throats as something we should accept.
Let the rabid, foaming at the mouth, gay rants begin. Just remember that you are vastly outnumbered.